Recent commentaries by King and Delfabbro (2013) and Starcevic (2013) have highlighted that 7 of the 9 criteria specifically refer to “Internet gaming”, whereas the remaining criteria refer to Internet use more generally. The proposed Internet Use Disorder classification contains nine criteria: (1) preoccupation with Internet gaming (2) withdrawal symptoms when Internet is taken away (3) tolerance: the need to spend increasing amounts of time engaged in Internet gaming, (4) unsuccessful attempts to control Internet gaming use (5) continued excessive Internet use despite knowledge of negative psychosocial problems (6) loss of interests, previous hobbies, entertainment as a result of, and with the exception of Internet gaming use (7) use of the Internet gaming to escape or relieve a dysphoric mood (8) has deceived family members, therapists, or others regarding the amount of Internet gaming and (9) has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of Internet gaming use.
This announcement marked the first occasion of video-gaming being formally recognized as a disorder, albeit tentatively, in clinical nomenclature. On May 1, 2012, the DSM-V Task Force and Work Groups proposed that Internet Use Disorder, which primarily refers to maladaptive video-gaming (or “Internet Gaming”) behavior, should be included in Section 3 of the DSM-V as the subject of further empirical inquiry. The question of whether a pattern of problematic video-gaming behaviors over a sustained period of time may constitute a psychological disorder is the topic of ongoing debate (Blaszczynski, 2006, King, Delfabbro and Zajac, 2011, Wood, 2008). Clinicians and researchers in allied mental health disciplines have proposed that, under certain conditions, video-gaming may become psychologically, socially, and/or physically detrimental to the user (e.g., Kuss and Griffiths, 2012a, Salguero and Moran, 2002). Video-gaming is an increasingly prevalent activity worldwide and has attracted increasing research attention in psychology and psychiatry (Sim et al., 2012, Weinstein and Lejoyeux, 2010). A synthesis of extant research efforts by meta-analysis may be difficult in the context of several divergent approaches to assessment. It is concluded that a unified approach to assessment of pathological video-gaming is needed. An emerging consensus suggests that pathological video-gaming is commonly defined by (1) withdrawal, (2) loss of control, and (3) conflict. However, key limitations included: (a) inconsistent coverage of core addiction indicators, (b) varying cut-off scores to indicate clinical status, (c) a lack of a temporal dimension, (d) untested or inconsistent dimensionality, and (e) inadequate data on predictive validity and inter-rater reliability. Strengths of available measures include: (i) short length and ease of scoring, (ii) excellent internal consistency and convergent validity, and (iii) potentially adequate data for development of standardized norms for adolescent populations. Results indicated that reviewed instrumentation may be broadly characterized as inconsistent. A total of 63 quantitative studies, including eighteen instruments and representing 58,415 participants, were evaluated. This systematic review was designed to evaluate the standards in pathological video-gaming instrumentation, according to Cicchetti (1994) and Groth-Marnat's (2009) criteria and guidelines for sound psychometric assessment.
Pathological video-gaming, or its proposed DSM-V classification of “Internet Use Disorder”, is of increasing interest to scholars and practitioners in allied health disciplines.
0 kommentar(er)
